How America botched the occupation

TomF

This is absolutely amazing reading!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/06/what_botched_occupation/


The Boston Globe
What 'botched' occupation?
By Jeff Jacoby, 11/6/2003

"EVERYWHERE I've traveled recently in Germany I've run into Americans, ranging from generals down to privates, who ask perplexedly, `What are we Americans supposed to be doing here? Are we going to take over this place and stay here forever?' "

So opened journalist Demaree Bess's article -- "How We Botched the German Occupation" -- in the Saturday Evening Post of Jan. 26, 1946. That was eight months after V-E Day, and Bess was sure that the Allies' military victory over Hitler was being squandered in the postwar.

"We have got into this German job without understanding what we were tackling or why," he wrote. "Not one American political leader fully realized at the outset how formidable our German commitments would prove to be. There was no idea, at the beginning, that Americans would become involved in a project to take Germany completely apart and put it together again in wholly new patterns."

Today, of course, few would argue that the United States "botched" the occupation of West Germany. Looking back from the early 21st century, it is clear that the transformation of the shattered Nazi Reich into a bulwark of democracy was one of the signal achievements of 20th-century statecraft. But on the ground in 1946, that happy outcome was nowhere in view. What was in view was an occupation beset by troubles -- chaotic, dangerous, and frequently vicious. Just like the one in Iraq today.

There is no denying that the news out of Iraq has been brutal lately. US soldiers die in roadside bombings and in brazen attacks like the helicopter downing that killed 15 on Sunday. Terrorists target civilian venues -- Red Cross offices, Muslim shrines, embassies -- for the bloodiest possible carnage. Iraqis are grateful to be free of Saddam Hussein, but many nonetheless inveigh against the American occupiers who toppled him. At the moment, Iraq seems a long, long way from anything resembling the stable and tolerant democracy President Bush says he is determined to see it become.

Not surprisingly, public support for the war is eroding. Only 54 percent of Americans still say it was worth fighting, according to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll. Just 47 percent of the public approves of President Bush's handling of Iraq; a thin majority, 51 percent, actually disapproved. Quagmire fears are deepening: 53 percent were "very" concerned that the United States will get bogged down. A few more horrific attacks, another bloody couple of months in Baghdad and Fallujah, and it isn't hard to imagine even more Americans giving up on Iraq and deciding we should never have gone in to begin with.

Which is exactly what Saddam and his murderer-loyalists -- and the terror cadres that have joined them -- are counting on. They expect us to walk away. They are certain that we will do again what we did in Beirut and Mogadishu: lose heart, pull out, and leave the Middle East to them.

Will we?

Make no mistake. We are now in the battle that will decide the course of the war. Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground. The Baathist diehards and Islamist car-bombers understand that everything is on the line. They know that if the Americans succeed in planting freedom and decency in the Arab world, they are finished. That is why they are determined at all costs to drive us out.

To his great credit, Bush has never wavered in his resolve to stay in Iraq until it is governed by a stable constitutional democracy. "The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will," he said on Nov. 1. "Our will canot be shaken." He and his administration have learned the core lesson of Sept. 11: The terrorist threat to civilization will never be rolled back until the Middle East is shaken from its nightmare of tyranny, cruelty, and religious fanaticism.

If only the Democrats running to replace Bush understood that lesson as well. Except for Senator Joseph Lieberman, none of them seems to grasp the magnitude of the stakes in Iraq. When they spoke of Iraq during their televised debate at Faneuil Hall Tuesday night, all they appeared to care about was genuflecting to the UN and denouncing "sweetheart deals for Halliburton."

On what is by far the most consequential issue of the day, the Democrats repeatedly come across as petty and unserious. The proper goal of the US occupation, the link between Iraq and American national security, the US role in reshaping the Middle East -- if the candidates have thought meaningfully about any of these, it is impossible to tell. Incredibly, the first post-9/11 presidential campaign is being contested by a Democratic lineup that has apparently learned next to nothing from 9/11.

Like the occupation of Germany in January 1946, America's work in Iraq is only getting underway. A huge amount of effort -- and danger -- still lies ahead. What Americans need now are leaders who can focus on the great work before them, not sideline snipers carping prematurely that the occupation has been "botched."

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

gandalf

It may be an amazing article but that does not quantify your opinion on what is being said in the article.

Please clarify that will you.

People are getting lazy again and not following the charter. If you post and article make sure you make your position on it clear!!

Gandalf.

Éomer of Rohan

More sycophantic twitter out of the right wing midden. I knew there was something wrong when I saw TomF's name beside an article entitled "How America Botched the Occupation."

The only thing I need to say about this is that it shows how utterly incompetent and retarded this American journalist is that he thinks there are parallels between Iraq 2003 and Germany 1945.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The only thing I need to say about this is that it shows how utterly incompetent and retarded this American journalist is that he thinks there are parallels between Iraq 2003 and Germany 1945.

He may have a very loose grip on history, but he has just as loose a grip on the present:

Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground.

What's the connection, again?

He and his administration have learned the core lesson of Sept. 11: The terrorist threat to civilization will never be rolled back until the Middle East is shaken from its nightmare of tyranny, cruelty, and religious fanaticism.

Clash of Civilizations nonsense. Who the hell encouraged and bankrolled these cruel, tyrannical regimes in the first place?

Trite, I know, but the whole article is trite, not even worth considering save for the fact that the writer is probably a Jew and that articles like this only serve to radicalize an already uneducated 'civilization'.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Dadakopf
Clash of Civilizations nonsense

Clash of Civilisations written by Samuel Huntingdon if I remember correctly? I tried reading that once; it made me sick.

He may aswell have just written "SADDAM IS EVIL!!! TERRORISTS ARE EVIL!!! TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL YOU!!! SAUDI ARABIA IS GOOD THOUGH, WE LIKE THEM!!! BTW VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!"

Éomer of Rohan

No that would have been inappropriate to the insipid tactics they prefer to use :rolleyes:

Sand

Its sad how people never learn from history, and reject out of hand its lessons when they dont fit in with their own views.

Trite, I know, but the whole article is trite, not even worth considering save for the fact that the writer is probably a Jew

It wouldnt be worth even that if the writer was Muslim, Catholic or Aetheist?

Éomer of Rohan

Hang on Sand, are you agreeing with us that this article is trash?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Its sad how people never learn from history, and reject out of hand its lessons when they dont fit in with their own views.

It sure is. As anyone using the example of Germany to defend the botched occupation of Iraq will eventually realise.

TomF

My apologies for not making my comment, too. I like to put up articles like these not only because I agree with them, but also because I enjoy the way the far-left cranks come out of the woodwork to respond to them. I don't mean to say that I post them as a way of throwing out bait.

At the ending stages of the first Gulf War, at the time of the "turkey shoot" so-called when the less adept units of the Iraqi army were out on the highway north from Kuwait staggering along under a burden of loot, fighter aircraft of the allies made an absolute slaughter which I though was very cruel. Also, there was extensive bombing of Baghdad going on, and I thought at the time that the country's infrastructure was being returned to the stone age and thought the pursuit should be broken-off.

It was broken off, and Iraq rebuilt its military machine at the expense of its cities and services for its people.

So maybe I and many others were wrong at the time in saying that the administration of Bush, Sr. should stop the pursuit. If the war had continued to the disruption of "the elite Republican Guard" (funny how we don't be reading that particular phrase much these days!), and the scattering of auld Saddam and Co., maybe the UN would have cooperated much more fully and today we would be talking about a well-organized, democratic, prosperous and peaceful Iraq.

Well, that didn't happen because the only mandate that the UN would support was to boot Iraq's military occupiers out of Kuwait.

The years that went by with Saddam thumbing his nose at the world finally came to a screeching halt when the amateur pilots of radical Islamic persuasion crashed their aircraft loaded with passengers into the two skyscrapers in New York City and the Pentagon in Virginia and, losing control, crashed one into a field in rural Pennsylvania. When that happened it was an absolute certainty that there was going to be a terrible consequence to some in the Islamic Middle East, and Afghanistan's band of guest terrorists took the first blow while Saddam Hussein's "elite Republican Guard" together with every other military target indentifiable in Iraq, took the next blow.

The blows have landed, and now I would say the US is in both countries to stay until the cauterisation is complete. Of course because the US is a democracy and has constitutionally-mandated elections every four years no matter what, unlike parliamentary countries, it could happen that the US Democratic Party will get into executive office and pull US forces out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. If that happens, it is only a matter of time before some hate-filled Islamic radical totes a suitcase-size nuclear bomb into a place like Disneyworld in Florida or a city like Boston or San Francisco and sets it off. For that matter, one could be set-off in a city like London or Liverpool too, and it isn't Sellafield we'd be worried about.

Sparks

Originally posted by TomF
At the ending stages of the first Gulf War, at the time of the "turkey shoot" so-called when the less adept units of the Iraqi army were out on the highway north from Kuwait staggering along under a burden of loot, fighter aircraft of the allies made an absolute slaughter which I though was very cruel.

Not to mention a war crime under the Geneva Convention since those troops were under orders to withdraw from Kuwait (which is what they were doing), and a formal cessation of hostilities against Kuwait by Iraq had been announced publically 12 hours before the attack. So when they were annihilated, those troops were protected by the UN charter and the Geneva convention.

mr_angry

Hold on TomF. Are you trying to link September 11th with Saddam Hussein? Much in the same way as "propaganda" stations like Fox News have been reporting it to the American people?

I agree with some points in the article. Pulling out now would be a horrible defeat for the Americans, and giving over Iraq to the militants and terrorists would be a disaster for the Iraqi people. But I'm also not naive enough to think that the Americans' only motive for being there is seeing true justice and democracy prevail. Money talks. And it does more talking in the American government than anywhere else on the planet.

Assuming the writer is a Jew is jumping to conclusions, but I have no doubt that this article is designed to be republican propaganda - the slagging off of the Democrats just lessens its credibility further. Having said that, there's plenty of left-wing propaganda out there too. However, I would not call this article "a great read" by any stretch of the imagination. Not unless you expected to be amused by it.

By the way, I'm disturbed by your doomsday predictions. What's the alternative? Hide under our beds all day every day? Create a totalitarian police state where nobody has any freedom, but at least we wont be bombed? Destroy every non-Western Democracy in case any member of their society has an anti-American viewpoint?

I don't know if I'd rather be blown up while feeling happy and carefree, or live in that world.

growler

Originally posted by Tom F

pull US forces out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. If that happens, it is only a matter of time before some hate-filled Islamic radical totes a suitcase-size nuclear bomb into a place like Disneyworld in Florida or a city like Boston or San Francisco and sets it off

I am amazed to see that anyone thinks that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have done anything to protect the west from such acts, sure they might have disrupted the ability to launch similar attacks in the short term from the likes of Osama but they have made many more enemies for themselves and I fear will suffer the consequences of their actions in years to come.

Geromino

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Clash of Civilizations nonsense. Who the hell encouraged and bankrolled these cruel, tyrannical regimes in the first place?

Trite, I know, but the whole article is trite, not even worth considering save for the fact that the writer is probably a Jew and that articles like this only serve to radicalize an already uneducated 'civilization'.

First of all, since when does a person religion have anything to do with an article's accuracy? I do not care if the person is Muslim, Christain, Shinto, Buhdist, Jew, or decided to paint himself purple with pink polkadots. There is no ZOG or anyting else on that matter.

It is a clash of civilizations. First, islamic fundamentalists reject western ideals, that is democracy and individual freedoms. This means that they reject any country that inhibits these ideals to some degree or another. Further, islamic fundamentalists, again not to be confused with moderate or traditional Muslims, believe that any non Muslim (Christian, Jew, Aeithist, Hindu, Shinto, etc) should either conform to Islam or be killed. Third, islamic fundamentalists believe that Christains and Jews are the dogs of earth and are not considered "humans." This goes against the Q'ran directly to treat Christains and Jews as brothers.

So, who is funding these groups? To start off with, it is primarily charitable orgainizations located in Europe, primarily, and the US, secondary. And you also have Syria, North Korea, Yemen, and a few other minor countries that have funded these groups.

growler wrote:

I am amazed to see that anyone thinks that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have done anything to protect the west from such acts, sure they might have disrupted the ability to launch similar attacks in the short term from the likes of Osama but they have made many more enemies for themselves and I fear will suffer the consequences of their actions in years to come.

This "problem" has been brewing for decades and only came into the forefront after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It started with Muslim nationalism and has culminated into a religious nationalism/fundamentalism that we see now. Even moderate Muslims are targeted for simply accepting Western ideals. Anid I do not think any of us would want to be under Shia law as perscribed by the Q'ran. However, you cannot find any logic in hate. I have read stories in which a person killed another person for simply scoffing their Air Jordons shoes, or will get a D on a reprot card or some other rediculous reason.

Sparks wrote:

Not to mention a war crime under the Geneva Convention since those troops were under orders to withdraw from Kuwait (which is what they were doing), and a formal cessation of hostilities against Kuwait by Iraq had been announced publically 12 hours before the attack. So when they were annihilated, those troops were protected by the UN charter and the Geneva convention.

Hogwash! If you are talking about the "Highway of Death" Battle, they were not fleeing Kuwait as prescribed by the Geneva Convention. They stole cars and vehicles as well as used their own to hide from the impeding assault. Under the Geneva Convention, the opposing force needs to display clearly and precisely (i.e. a white flag) that they were leaving. They did not do this and could not be assumed in a battlefield. Under the rules of engagement in which the pilots were under, any moving vehicle displaying a "hostile manner" would be fired upon. If you are talking about the incident in which the 24th Mech Inf div, then you better look at the evidence from over a thousand officers and enlisted personell gave in which they were fired upon first.

But then agian, if it is printed on the internet, then it must be true, sign

shotamoose

Originally posted by Geromino
It is a clash of civilizations. First, islamic fundamentalists reject western ideals, that is democracy and individual freedoms. This means that they reject any country that inhibits these ideals to some degree or another. Further, islamic fundamentalists, again not to be confused with moderate or traditional Muslims, believe that any non Muslim (Christian, Jew, Aeithist, Hindu, Shinto, etc) should either conform to Islam or be killed. Third, islamic fundamentalists believe that Christains and Jews are the dogs of earth and are not considered "humans." This goes against the Q'ran directly to treat Christains and Jews as brothers.

The problem is when people try to explain everything that happens in the middle east (or anywhere else) in terms of this cultural divide (or some other cultural divide). Surely it's obvious that resistance to the occupation of Iraq is not all about culture. Neither is anti-American terrorism, or the 'War on Terror'. Simplifying complex situations into these childlike dichotomies obscures more than it reveals.

So, who is funding these groups? To start off with, it is primarily charitable orgainizations located in Europe, primarily, and the US, secondary. And you also have Syria, North Korea, Yemen, and a few other minor countries that have funded these groups.

Not Saudi Arabia, then? I'd be interested to see a list of the charitable organisations in Europe that are the primary source of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism.

I have read stories in which a person killed another person for simply scoffing their Air Jordons shoes

I've read those stories too, except they were all about New York or some other North American city. What's your point? Was that down to a clash of civilisations too?

bonkey

It never ceases to amaze me no end that when a US-critic draws parallells of any sort between the any pro-US nation and Germany in WW2, you get the pro-US team coming out full guns blazing telling us how completely inappropriate it is to compare whatever-it-was-you-did-compare with the Germans, and the horrific atrocities they performed, and how (especially if Jews are in any way involved in the modern situation you drew the comparisons to) its cheapening the memory of the Holocaust, if not just downright anti-Semitic.

Then they go and push articles like this to tell us how wrong those critics are anyway because wait for it........Iraq is just like Germany.

<sarcasm>
Ah yes....good old equally-applied standards are always a joy to behold.
</sarcasm>

Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground

That would be one of those flawed attempts to convince us all once again that these things are purely binary. You can have a, or b, but thats it.


Oh...I also noticed that the author failed to mention that the US remained in Germany from the end of the war up until the present day, and yet tell us they want to be out of Iraq ASAP. But its still the same......

It is a clash of civilizations. First, islamic fundamentalists reject western ideals

And we reject theirs. We are convinced we are right and they are wrong - naturally. what amazes me is that people seem amazed that these guys just don't agree with us.

So, who is funding these groups? To start off with, it is primarily charitable orgainizations located in Europe, primarily, and the US, secondary.

So, ummm, what the hell is the US doing in the Middle East, when the two major problem areas are itself and Europe????

any moving vehicle displaying a "hostile manner" would be fired upon

So all that remains is to explain how a car, bus, or truck (as you said), running away from your oncoming M1-Abrahms, Apache gunships, etc, could be seen as acting in a "hostile manner" and you're away with it....

"They were fired upon first" in a situation like that sounds as genuine a reason for the thousands of deaths caused as the IDF saying "he threw a rock at our tank" is for when - on occasion - the Israeli's gunned down some young kids.

From a link I found :

Reprinted from the San Francisco Chronicle

The Pentagon said that a "gap" in the laws governing warfare made it legally permissible during the gulf war for U.S. tanks to bury thousands of Iraqi troops in their trenches and for U.S. warplanes to bomb the enemy retreating along the so-called Highway of Death.

An elaborate legal justification was contained in an appendix to the report on the war sent to Congress by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The section also accused Iraq of "widespread and premeditated" war crimes and environmental terrorism.

So technically you're right. Its not a war-crime....in the same way that if I could find a similar legal loophole, walking up to a person on the street and blowing his or her head open with a couple of well-placed rounds from an assault rifle wouldn't be murder.

Oh, and its important to note that while saying "it wasn't murder", I should also point out that the victim was part of an organisation which I felt was responsible for many murders itself - as if that was somehow relevant to my case.

The US seems awfully fond of availing of gaps in the law. The Highway of Death wasn't a war crime....the Gitmo Detainees were neither combatants or non-combatants.....

What amazes me is that neither the US - nor anyone else - seems interested in actually plugging these gaps once they've been exposed.

I'm pretty sure that if a US operative was captured in (say) the next country they are militarily involved in, and the captors completely disregarded the GC in their treatment of said operative, and justified it on the grounds of "well, we think that he isn't actually covered by the rules, so our actions are ok", the US would not be one of the most vociferous supporters of the intent - rather than the letter - of the law, and also would be amongst the first to start pointing out that it is not the right of the involved parties to make such decisions.

Note - I said "pretty sure". Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the US would actually say "fair enough...we do the same to the rules". I somehow doubt it though.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
So technically you're right. Its not a war-crime....in the same way that if I could find a similar legal loophole, walking up to a person on the street and blowing his or her head open with a couple of well-placed rounds from an assault rifle wouldn't be murder.

You can stand in the middle of the busy main street of a German city and fire your crossbow all day and once you don't hit anyone, all the police can do is fine you (50DM / €25).

Sand

Hang on Sand, are you agreeing with us that this article is trash?

Nah, just curious how the writers religion comes into play in dismissing the piece. Should I dismiss any opinion pieces by say, Muslim writers because they might criticise the war on terror , but darnit its down to the fact theyre muslim so theyre opinion doesnt count? Ive seen pieces by Israeli writers criticising Israels operations in the occupied territories....I guess I can dismiss them out of hand too because theyre Jewish too? Do you dismiss such pieces in a similar fashion?

It sure is. As anyone using the example of Germany to defend the botched occupation of Iraq will eventually realise.

Ah, the echo of history - just keeps on repeating itself. As we all know Germany was a cakewalk - no mass destruction on an epic scale, economic implosion even greater than that which Nazism and Communism had thrived before, massive refugee influxes from the east as Germans were ethnically cleansed from free communist Europe, the sheer horror of the holocaust and the denazification process, the sacking of Berlin and other Gemran cities by the Russians liberators, and of course the bitter cold war brewing between the two superpowers attempting to run the country - leading to such wonderful occurences as the Berlin blockade.

Bloody cakewalk it was. Success in terms of the modern, unified, democratic Germany we all know and love was a foregone conclusion wasnt it? Never in doubt. Never any setbacks.

And of course, then as now, there were those who utterly believed in the certainty of failure, the impossibility of victory. Lets hope history keeps on repeating itself eh?

I'm pretty sure that if a US operative was captured in (say) the next country they are militarily involved in, and the captors completely disregarded the GC in their treatment of said operative, and justified it on the grounds of "well, we think that he isn't actually covered by the rules, so our actions are ok", the US would not be one of the most vociferous supporters of the intent - rather than the letter - of the law, and also would be amongst the first to start pointing out that it is not the right of the involved parties to make such decisions.

Course they would - So would you if you were in their position. So long as the US remains within the law, surely world opinion ( and that of editors everywhere ) is satisfied? If they have better lawyers than the hypothetical enemy then whats wrong with that? If we attempt to go with the intent of the law, which is of course highly subjective it leads down a slippery path...something youve argued against previously havent you? Look at Mr Wright - letter of the law was applied was Corks position, something you felt wasnt worth dignifying with a response. I dont see what the problem is so long as the US didnt break the law and you say yourself they didnt. Unless of course the intent of the law trumps the letter of the law in your opinion - if only in certain cases.

Redleslie

Sand, do you think Saddam was/is the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler and that the Iraqi regime was a monumental threat to the world? If not why are you comparing Iraq with Germany? The US invasion of Iraq should only really be compared with the British invasion and occupation in the last century.

And why do you quote George Orwell in your sig? I'm reminded of the South Park episode where the town is arguing over whether the founding fathers would support the war or not, if they were'nt dead for a couple of hundred years.

Sparks

Originally posted by Geromino
[First, islamic fundamentalists reject western ideals, that is democracy and individual freedoms.

Really? You know, nationalist fundamentalists killed unionist fundamentalists here for decades. Doesn't mean that they ever spoke for the rest of us - in fact, the rest of us wanted them in jail for their actions.
You'll have to prove that the same isn't true of Islam for your point to be right.

Hogwash! If you are talking about the "Highway of Death" Battle, they were not fleeing Kuwait as prescribed by the Geneva Convention. They stole cars and vehicles as well as used their own to hide from the impeding assault.

No, they didn't. They withdrew, under orders which were publicly broadcast on Baghdad Radio as well as sent to the US command twelve hours before the attacks on the basra highway began.
It was a war crime, unsupported by the UN mandate the US troops were operating under, and specifically prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

Under the Geneva Convention, the opposing force needs to display clearly and precisely (i.e. a white flag) that they were leaving.

Wrong (about the white flag). And telling your enemy 12 hours prior to the attack that you're withdrawing in accordance with UN demands is about as clear and precise as I can think of.

They did not do this and could not be assumed in a battlefield.

What battlefield? They weren't in the fight anymore, they had withdrawn.

Under the rules of engagement in which the pilots were under, any moving vehicle displaying a "hostile manner" would be fired upon.

Withdrawing from the battle under orders to cease hostilities, orders that the US knew about, is the antithesis of a "hostile manner".

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Course they would - So would you if you were in their position.

How nice of you to make assumptions for me on my moral stance.

If we attempt to go with the intent of the law, which is of course highly subjective it leads down a slippery path...something youve argued against previously havent you?

No, it isn't. Law is always interpreted, and it is down to those in the relevant positions (e.g. High Court in Ireland for Irish Law?) to interpret how the law should be applied to a given situation.

In the case of the US, they are making decisions and taking actions based on their own interpretation of the law. For example, the Geneva Conventions specifically state that when someone's legal status under the convention is questionable, then it is not for either party to decide, but rather a neutral arbitrative body. In both the Highway of Death and Gitmo, this has not been done. Yes, thats not just the US' fault - because those who could make such arbitration are too scared to actually do their job and criticise the US...because they don't want to become "against us".

Look at Mr Wright - letter of the law was applied was Corks position, something you felt wasnt worth dignifying with a response.

It wasn't that the law was served that wasn't worthy of a response. It was the assumption that because the system had been used, that all must be in order. Thats like equating the existence of laws with the adherence to them.

jc

Sand

Sand, do you think Saddam was/is the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler and that the Iraqi regime was a monumental threat to the world? If not why are you comparing Iraq with Germany?

Because of the difficulty of the task that is facing the liberating forces right now - having to build a democratic country right up from the ground, and the massive disbelief in the possibility of success.

nd why do you quote George Orwell in your sig? I'm reminded of the South Park episode where the town is arguing over whether the founding fathers would support the war or not, if they were'nt dead for a couple of hundred years.

I like the quote. It demonstrates how history repeats itself, everything we see now and all the positions we see articulated have all come before. Id stick in the January 1946 quote by Bess as well but Im probably testing the boundaries of sig size as it is.

How nice of you to make assumptions for me on my moral stance.

Well if we were to hypothetically place you in the position of the US administration having to react to such a situation, then Id have to wonder how you got there without being a politician. And Id have to wonder how long youd last in your job saying "Yeah, well we have unlawful combatants so I guess its okay for them to apply their own standards to our soldiers". Youd have mobs with pitchforks outside your door by morning - sooner even

For example, the Geneva Conventions specifically state that when someone's legal status under the convention is questionable, then it is not for either party to decide, but rather a neutral arbitrative body. In both the Highway of Death and Gitmo, this has not been done. Yes, thats not just the US' fault - because those who could make such arbitration are too scared to actually do their job and criticise the US...because they don't want to become "against us".

If it was questionable then why wasnt it brought to court by either side or even by concerned bystanders - clearly it wasnt questionable. It was wholly legal and above board and justified. The law and the legal process arent wrong. And name me a neutral arbitrative body in world politics?

It wasn't that the law was served that wasn't worthy of a response. It was the assumption that because the system had been used, that all must be in order. Thats like equating the existence of laws with the adherence to them.

Wasnt everything in order though? The only real problem is that Wright got away with what could have been murder - but the letter of the law was served. The intent of the law was ignored but havent we always been afraid of going after the intent of the law over the letter for fear of lawlessness and dangerous precedents.

Geromino

Originally posted by shotamoose
The problem is when people try to explain everything that happens in the middle east (or anywhere else) in terms of this cultural divide (or some other cultural divide). Surely it's obvious that resistance to the occupation of Iraq is not all about culture. Neither is anti-American terrorism, or the 'War on Terror'. Simplifying complex situations into these childlike dichotomies obscures more than it reveals.

So basically what you are saying is that you will find an explanation suitable to your own political beliefs no matter how inaccurate it is. Although I am not trying to explain everyithing of what is happening in the Middle East, it is still a valid point in terms of Islamic Fundamentalists rejecting western ideals of individual rights. Case in point is Nigeria, a shining example of Islamic Fundamentalism. You can also look at Iran and the Taliban govenrment (remember when they destroyed some Bahdist statues that were thousands of years of years old).

Not Saudi Arabia, then? I'd be interested to see a list of the charitable organisations in Europe that are the primary source of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism.

As I ahve stated minor countries. As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, individuals from Saudi Arabia have contributed to terrorist groups. It does not mean that King Fahd has done so. Nor has his upper echelon govenrment officilas have contributed that we know of. But then again, the Islamic banks are not part of the international banking system, generally, and very little is known about their operations, their assets, their control techniques, and their overall structure.

I've read those stories too, except they were all about New York or some other North American city. What's your point? Was that down to a clash of civilisations too?

The point was trying to put logic to hatred. You cannot. You can attempt to explain why someone or some group does a particular event or even hold a particualr philosophy, but you cannot make into logic hatred. You will find that anyone can or will hate you no matter what you do, what you say, what you do not say, or where you live. It is their perception that you have wronged them in some way that will somehow cause this hatred and it will be based upon their actions on how to resolve it. Psychologists have for years try to explain hatred but cannot. Some psychologists will call individuals or groups of hatred as paranoid to help explain the situation, but still cannot explain it in detail.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
That would be one of those flawed attempts to convince us all once again that these things are purely binary. You can have a, or b, but thats it.

Oh...I also noticed that the author failed to mention that the US remained in Germany from the end of the war up until the present day, and yet tell us they want to be out of Iraq ASAP. But its still the same......

As far as Iraq is concerned, a democracy would prove very vital to the world. However, what form of democracy should take place? Or should Iraq even be democratized are the questions I believe the author is asking?

And we reject theirs. We are convinced we are right and they are wrong - naturally. what amazes me is that people seem amazed that these guys just don't agree with us.

There is a difference between agreeing or disagreeing with culture. And having experienced several very different cultures, one should always not judge a culture so callously as Islamic Fundamentalists have. That is only one of their fatal flaws.

So, ummm, what the hell is the US doing in the Middle East, when the two major problem areas are itself and Europe????

Attacking the money supply is only part of the answer. Attacking the groups directly (either covertly or overtly) is the other part of the equation.

So all that remains is to explain how a car, bus, or truck (as you said), running away from your oncoming M1-Abrahms, Apache gunships, etc, could be seen as acting in a "hostile manner" and you're away with it....

"They were fired upon first" in a situation like that sounds as genuine a reason for the thousands of deaths caused as the IDF saying "he threw a rock at our tank" is for when - on occasion - the Israeli's gunned down some young kids.

From a link I found :

So technically you're right. Its not a war-crime....in the same way that if I could find a similar legal loophole, walking up to a person on the street and blowing his or her head open with a couple of well-placed rounds from an assault rifle wouldn't be murder.

Oh, and its important to note that while saying "it wasn't murder", I should also point out that the victim was part of an organisation which I felt was responsible for many murders itself - as if that was somehow relevant to my case.

The US seems awfully fond of availing of gaps in the law. The Highway of Death wasn't a war crime....the Gitmo Detainees were neither combatants or non-combatants.....

What amazes me is that neither the US - nor anyone else - seems interested in actually plugging these gaps once they've been exposed.

I'm pretty sure that if a US operative was captured in (say) the next country they are militarily involved in, and the captors completely disregarded the GC in their treatment of said operative, and justified it on the grounds of "well, we think that he isn't actually covered by the rules, so our actions are ok", the US would not be one of the most vociferous supporters of the intent - rather than the letter - of the law, and also would be amongst the first to start pointing out that it is not the right of the involved parties to make such decisions.

Note - I said "pretty sure". Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the US would actually say "fair enough...we do the same to the rules". I somehow doubt it though.

jc

Bonkey, explain the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary homocide, involuntary homocide, vehicular homicide, and justifiable homocide/accident. In case you are wondering, each of these terms describe "murder" with each having a somewhat specific set of parameters to establish at what level each one is defined as, and only one is defined as a legal murder. As far as "gaps' in the laws are concerned, it is impossible for lawmakers to write laws that deal with specific circumstances of any situation known or unknown. Laws are not written that way. They are written in broad general parameters with room for interpretation. Thus the argument of legal action vs illegal action of Iraq, Gulf War actions, or other historic events come into play here. You are then going to define those paramenters even further by a political, philosophical or even both dogma to justify your argument or not justify someone else's.

Sparks

Originally posted by Geromino
As far as "gaps' in the laws are concerned, it is impossible for lawmakers to write laws that deal with specific circumstances of any situation known or unknown. Laws are not written that way. They are written in broad general parameters with room for interpretation. Thus the argument of legal action vs illegal action of Iraq, Gulf War actions, or other historic events come into play here.

Codswallop. The Geneva Convention stated in black and white that those soldiers were protected persons, and the US slaughtered them in full knowledge of that.
That's a war crime, plain and simple.

Geromino

Originally posted by Sparks
Really? You know, nationalist fundamentalists killed unionist fundamentalists here for decades. Doesn't mean that they ever spoke for the rest of us - in fact, the rest of us wanted them in jail for their actions.
You'll have to prove that the same isn't true of Islam for your point to be right.

Both or just the unionists, Sparks. I have yet to find anyone who wanted both groups, in terms of Northern Ireland's situation, in jail. More realistically, they wanted the other group in jail not their own.

No, they didn't. They withdrew, under orders which were publicly broadcast on Baghdad Radio as well as sent to the US command twelve hours before the attacks on the basra highway began.
It was a war crime, unsupported by the UN mandate the US troops were operating under, and specifically prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

If we hold this premise is true, then Saddam Hussein would have broadcasted those orders directly to his troops and at the same time in a general broadcast over the "loudspeaker." (Using public radio to broadcast those same orders.) Let us take a look at the first premise. Saddam would had to have some sort of command and control facilities and lines of communications to make those orders. This would also go against the premise that Saddam made to make Kuwait "the mother of all battles." It would also have to go against the premise in which Saddam used is elite Republican Guard to kill any officer or enlisted person who even attempted or allowed to attempt to surrender to the coalition forces. Now, let us take a look at the second premise. To be made in such, one would reasonable assume that the senior commanders heard said radio broadcasts. And not only did the US, but also the other coalition forces, namely the Arab forces of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and Syrian forces would have too. It would also would have been heard in Jordon or by UN observers in Saudi Arabia. But then again, I guess that is one of those conspiracy theories of how we are all "bushwacked" into believing something else. But what we have not gone into are the rules of engagement in which US senior commanders make and subcommanders follow unless specifically prescribed by the Geneva Convention.

Wrong (about the white flag). And telling your enemy 12 hours prior to the attack that you're withdrawing in accordance with UN demands is about as clear and precise as I can think of.

Using white Flags is the most precise way and diret way for military units to withdraw from a theater of command. Again, if there was a broadcast, then there must be an official record and tape recorded for evidence.

What battlefield? They weren't in the fight anymore, they had withdrawn.

More precisely, Kuwait was the theater of operation and any military operational unit was within the jurisdiction of combat.

Withdrawing from the battle under orders to cease hostilities, orders that the US knew about, is the antithesis of a "hostile manner".

Again, how did the US know. See the points I made about the broadcasts and the premises of your argument.

gurramok

Because of the difficulty of the task that is facing the liberating forces right now - having to build a democratic country right up from the ground, and the massive disbelief in the possibility of success

Funnily enough the british media are reporting the perpetrators of the attacks on US forces as either insurgents or guerrilas.
Not as terrorists like some of the US govt would want the world press to indicate

The liberating forces are no longer as the country is more or less liberated from Saddam. They are turning more into an occupying force in the eyes of many iraqis (reputedly so, cannot be gauged).

A proper Iraqi govt with elected support from its people who wish to invite the US troops to stay would not have a resisting comment from me on the matter

Otherwise it is turning into another Vietnam/Afghanistan and comparison by the author with WWII is crazy

Sand

The liberating forces are no longer as the country is more or less liberated from Saddam. They are turning more into an occupying force in the eyes of many iraqis (reputedly so, cannot be gauged).

Funny that. The US is criticised for its lack of follow through in Afghanisatan. Then its criticised for following through on Iraq.

They just cant win can they?

As for the eyes of many iraqis....the *only* survey Ive seen fo Iraqis showed that only 13% of Iraqis wanted the US to leave immediately. Ive been told since the survey doesnt count but like I said its the *only* survey Ive seen and the *only* indication of what Iraqis are even loosely thinking. Id love to know what hotline to god the anti-war movement have when they claim the Iraqis want the US gone.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Funny that. The US is criticised for its lack of follow through in Afghanisatan. Then its criticised for following through on Iraq.

The US has been criticised for the nature of its follow-through in both cases, and with good cause. Afghanistan and Iraq are different cases, so it's not surprising to see different solutions offered and different criticisms made. I think that's a better way to approach the situation than simply repeating "It's just like Germany, so it must be fine" over and over again. Even the Americans don't bother with such a spurious argument.

As for the eyes of many iraqis....the *only* survey Ive seen fo Iraqis showed that only 13% of Iraqis wanted the US to leave immediately. Ive been told since the survey doesnt count but like I said its the *only* survey Ive seen and the *only* indication of what Iraqis are even loosely thinking. Id love to know what hotline to god the anti-war movement have when they claim the Iraqis want the US gone.

I've seen two polls reported, though one of them might be the one you mention.

First one carried out by Channel 4 and YouGov in Baghdad . Some results:

50% say the war against Saddam's regime was 'right', 27% say 'wrong', 23% don't know.

6% say the main reason for the war was to find and destroy WMD, 23% say to liberate the Iraqis from dictatorship, 47% say to secure oil supplies.

asked if they would prefer to live under Saddam or the Americans, 29% went for the Americans, 9% for Saddam and 47% said 'no preference'.

47% said their lives were worse than a year ago, 32% better.

There's quite a few more questions there.

Poll carried out by Gallup

Although 62% of Baghdad residents who participated in Gallup's landmark poll of that city said ousting Saddam Hussein was worth any personal hardships they have endured since the invasion, most are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its action.

Sand

The US has been criticised for the nature of its follow-through in both cases, and with good cause. Afghanistan and Iraq are different cases, so it's not surprising to see different solutions offered and different criticisms made. I think that's a better way to approach the situation than simply repeating "It's just like Germany, so it must be fine" over and over again. Even the Americans don't bother with such a spurious argument.

Hey, its got to beat "Were utterly screwed!!!!!" again and again. Critics of the American liberation often do bother with spurious arguments such as "CIA/Latin America/Cold War/Iran" etc etc and they get plenty of airtime - so long as negative examples from throughout history are applicable then logically positive examples must also be admissable?

Or maybe as I said at the start, people seem to learn from history what they want to. And if you cant find the right message in the history books you can always revise them.

I've seen two polls reported, though one of them might be the one you mention.

Yeah thats the one, havent seen the other one before but good to see it now. The general story is that the Iraqis are deeply cynical over the reasons for the American liberation, are worse off in the short term, but are optimistic that they will be better off in the long term.

They are supportive of the Iraqi representive council, and wish to return political control to the Iraqis yesterday if not sooner, but do not wish to see the Americans leave for anything between a year to several years. They believe the US is serious about democratic reform and that the US will allow Iraqis to find their own way. Whilst the model they envision is not decisive they largest bloc of support seems to be for a British/American style democracy. They believe the US is serious about Improving the Iraqis economic prospects.

They on the other hand are divided - they disagree, but again its not decisive - as to whether the US will keep Iraq unified or remove its troops within a few years. Germany - that hated example - still has US troops inside its borders all these years on so they have grounds for that belief.

Like I said though - the general opinion of the Iraqis seems to be fairly positive towards the future and the USs role in rebuilding a democratic Iraq .... where are the "US=Great Satan" crowd getting their belief that the US forces are some great evil? The students up and down Ireland and abroad must be feeling betrayed by the Iraqis lack of bile towards Bush:|